The facts: Socialism and U.S. healthcare

Tue, 09/11/2012 - 11:40amLetters to the ...

As a physician practicing in the area for over a decade, I had to respond in conscience to the recent editorial referring to healthcare for the poor. In order to make any decision as a populace, we must first have the facts. There were many misleading statements and few facts in Mr. Timothy Parker’s recent essay.

I can start with just the title at first, “Poorest Entitled to Healthcare in U.S.”

First and foremost, no one is “entitled” to any benefits not listed in the Constitution. We may vote democratically to add benefits (Medicare, Social Security, housing) but no one is entitled.

Secondly, and more pertinently, we HAVE health insurance for the poorest. It is called Medicaid.

Many do not understand the difference between Medicare (elderly and disabled) and Medicaid (poorest). There are strict low-income caps on any who apply for Medicaid. It is exclusively designed for the poor.

As far as the rest of us,there is no doubt that there is a problem with healthcare in the U.S. However, to say that there are 50 million people without “healthcare” is misleading. There are 50 million without “health insurance.”

Anyone who is ill can go to an emergency room and receive care; and of those 50 million, how many are between the ages of 20-35 who would choose not to buy insurance even if they had the financial means?

A healthy 26-year-old can get insurance for about $150 per month. Would that person choose to pay for insurance, or put part of that toward his iPhone bill?

Looking at the numbers, there are about 25 million people who need health insurance who can’t afford it. That is about 7 percent of the U.S. population.

What the Affordable Care Act (ACA) did was revamp the entire system for only 7 percent of the population.

It put control of our personal health decisions in the hands of the federal government. Regardless of whether it is the government directly or the insurance exchange, the ultimate power of what health services are covered, how much is paid, and what services can be offered comes from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The U.S. Preventative Task Force is the federal government’s public health screening arm. Under President Obama this task force has recommended that NO man of ANY age should ever be screened for prostate cancer. They also recommend that no woman under 40 without risks should get a mammogram and after age 50 every OTHER year.

To most doctors this is unconscionable. What about those who agree with Obamacare? Do you follow those guidelines? Does Mr. Parker? The real question is what will happen in 2014 when the federal government takes control of those decisions for you and your doctor?

The ACA/Obamacare was not passed “with great compromise” as inferred. Not a single Republican in the House voted for it. It is modeled after “Romneycare” in Massachusetts, however, and this year the governor of Massachusetts is attempting to pass a $20 billion cut to their program because of the losses.

Last year Massachusetts tried to pull legal immigrants from the insurance pool, but they were denied by their own state supreme court.

Looking at socialized medicine worldwide, we see a similar picture. Most socialized nations have the same rate of increase in health expenditures as the U.S., they just have a lower starting point.

These starting points are falsely low as a result of their health insurance and retirement systems not being included in expenses because the governments are responsible for retirement.

It would be similar to United Healthcare or Blue Cross Blue Shield not having to pay for a human resource department and 401k plans.

Most importantly, we have to look at quality of care for those who are sick. In Canada, the death rate from breast cancer is about 10 percent higher than in the U.S. For colon cancer it is about 7 percent higher.

I have had Canadian patients inform me wait times for elective hip replacement is 13 months. Right now I have a patient whose sister has a herniated back disc and is on chronic medication whose wait time for surgery is 15 months. She is attempting to get a surgery here in the U.S.

Canada is worse than most of Europe, but not by much. In Britain they deny certain seniors dialysis, which leads to certain death. Longer wait times, less care — and this is before austerity measures.

What we all must understand is that there is no magic bullet. If we choose socialized medicine, it is not only the doctors and hospitals that suffer, but also the patients. Some bureaucracy that “knows best” will decide what is right for us.

On the other hand, if we choose a market-driven system, there will be those who fall between the cracks of care. For those there is charity care — free medication and free services with a little investigative work.

All major pharmaceutical companies will give free medications to those with low incomes, including the working poor.

Right here in Fayette there is the Fayette Care Clinic and the Take Care Clinic for low- or no-income persons. There are often delays and changes in charity care but those are not much worse than we see in socialized care elsewhere.

Medicare is available for those who become disabled at younger ages.

If we say we are following Judeo-Christian beliefs, will we be able to live up to our responsibilities with donations of time and money? If not, will we choose “forced conversion” where the taxes of ACA/Obamacare are used against our will to fund second-tier healthcare for all? This is what this next election will decide.

I have presented hard facts and personal experiences. Mr. Parker has provided vague facts and innuendos. Whom should you believe?

This is the information age. I challenge everyone to research these facts using reputable sources. Please educate yourselves — your life depends on it.

Anthony F. Lawson, M.D.

Fayetteville, Ga.

[Dr. Lawson is associated with Starr’s Mill Internal Medicine located on Ga. Highway 74 just south of Peachtree City.]

The point EVERYONE is trying to make to you people is that we CANNOT CONTINUE TO SPEND A <strong>TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS A YEAR</strong> when only 51% of Americans pay taxes.

It does not matter who makes up the 49% DM.. you guys get all hung up in the class warfare of it but the point all of us is trying to get across to you and the rest of the spend, spend and spend some more crowd is it is UNSUSTAINABLE.

Even President Obama knows this... "President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending â€œunsustainable,â€ warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries." but then again that was in 2009.

Then the National debt was $10,300,793,000,000 now it is $16,001,750,000.

<strong>6 TRILLION dollars more</strong> since Obama took office and it cannot go on forever. Just look at Greece, Spain and others DM. They thought they could just keep spending, taxing and boroowing and look where they are today..

"Starving Greeks queue for food in their thousands as debt-wracked country finally forms a coalition government... but how long will it last?"

"The people of Greece are starving, their children are dying before their eyes and they are powerless to do anything to stop it."

"According to figures published today by Cadena Ser from the Spanish National Institute for Statistics (INE) the number of individuals that declared themselves insolvent went up by 289.56% to 374 and the number of companies and self employed who went into administration went up by 187.3% to 2,528 last year. "

<strong> That's our future Dm</strong> is this what you want to leave David or his children?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

We are now at 47% a mere 4 points away from losing the country and our form of government to exactly the cancer he was predicting. How can you see it any other way? And what do you think happens to your precious entitlement system after that? When it all ends not with a whimper, but a bang. Tell me what happens when the checks stop completely for both the "unfortunate" and the seniors, Medicare implodes (forget Medicade) and the EBT cards don't work. Tell me.

Medicare/Social Security. - those receiving it today PAID for it!. Reasonable men and women can correct the fraud and corruption and correct the misuse of safety net programs. We don't need the soup lines and suicides in 2013. . . . We need honesty and integrity instead of 'smart talk'. This country, the American people, can survive this. We'll demand it from whoever is in the White House or Congress.

It varies, but if you paid in the max for 40 years and start taking SS and Meidcare at 65, you will get back what you paid in when you turn 75 - or at least that is how it calculates on mine. After age 75 your SS payments are coming from 2 or 3 current workers. And that's just SS. Medicare is a crapshoot - a serious illness, an operation and two weeks in the hospital pretty much uses up what you paid into Medicare. Most everybody that lives past 75 will take a lot more out of Medicare than they put in. And you have to figure it on dollars in and dollars out with no interest or earnings calculation because the government took that money and spent it on something the day after you paid it in. No way it earned interest - as a private retirement account would.

Remember how Bush wanted to privatize 3% of social security and everybody got so worked up about HOW RISKY that was? Well, what about the risk of the current system which is an exposed Ponzi scheme that is running out of suckers to contribute. Remember, only employed people pay into this stuff. And our real unemployment rate to include everybody not working for whatever reason is about 20%. With fewer employed contributors, the faster we hit the wall at the end.

Medicaid, of course is a handout, renamed entitlement by those who want to pretend that it will never end, along with the rest of the entitlements. 6 or 7 years and it will all come to a screeching halt, Sooner if you reelect Obama.

That's your view of the situation - and those who refuse to sit down with experts to work out a solution unless the president is their choice. Fortunately, older citizens are living past 75 (do you consider that a bad thing?) Changes in 'safety nets' must be made. Do you kick and scream and refuse to fix it because you see it is broken - or do you put on your big boy pants and work with others to look at the changing reality - and see how this can be fixed. Medicaid? Let them die? Interesting.

No I did not say that - ever. Don't make things up, it discredits you I said the entire system is coming to an end. People living past 75 is neither good or bad - simply a fact when combined with the other fact that others are paying their bills.

Changes must indeed be made - Bush the younger proposed privitizing 3% of SS and he was dissed - big time. If I were fixing it as a dictator, retirement age would be 70, my SS taxes would be 15%, Medicare 20% and those taxes would be collected on earnings up to and beyond $250,000 (the rich people - after all, these millionaires have to pay their fair share and at a certain point you have made enough money). Why not do that? Make it clear no existing SS receipients will get any changes, nor would anyone over age 50. That way people could plan ahead and the system would be solvent for about 30 years - then, fix it again. I do think I would allow self-employed people the option of directing 50% of their SS contributions into a 401k with more serious penalties for early withdrawal than we have now. Of course their SS payments at age 70 would be severely reduced, but they could probably earn more from the 401k and start taking that at age 59.5. What's not to like about that?

OR, just leave things as they are and lose every single entitelement in 6 or 7 years. None at all. The predators would have to hunt for food and money on the street. At least they have guns already. I hear venison can be tasty when marinated properly. And under this scenario, many seniors would indeed die early without any medical treatment. Obamacare won't be saving the people suddenly without Medicare or Medicaid.

Or, another alternative - get rid of all the government anti-business, anti-domestic oil exploration and drilling and all the uncertainty about new taxes and maybe that 20% unemployment will drop. This is called the Romney solution.

[quote]Or, another alternative - get rid of all the government anti-business, anti-domestic oil exploration and drilling and all the uncertainty about new taxes and maybe that 20% unemployment will drop. This is called the Romney solution.[/quote]

...REASONABLE men & women can; didn't work so well in the USSR & the Eastern bloc - probably ain't gonna work here, either. Even the Chinese are starting to get a clue. Let's leave our country to the people, not the government.

According to the Constitution - WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! We've given our power over to our representatives who are controlled by the corporations/individuals who give them the money to be reelected by ADS! Sad.

So are we to accept that all of your opinions and positions are completely your own intellectual distilations and those that differ from you are mere hacks? Like a certain half-term governor, I read all the papers.

The constitutionality of a law is not based on its explicit inclusion in the document itself. Legislative powers are given to Congress, as described in Article I. Congress, operating within those powers, passed the ACA. The Supreme Court acting within its powers, under Article III, ruled to uphold the law. Nuff said.

You don't like said law and you seek to delegitimize the President, the Court, Congress, me and anyone who disagrees with your divination of the Constitution. How very un-American!

The operative word here!!! I wonder who was/is their social studies teacher? Probably one of those 'private' schools or home schooling. <cite>Ideology vs. fact.</cite>

My impression after WWII (I admittedly was very young) was Americans working together and sacrificing in order to recover from the WAR. There was gas rationing, victory gardens, etc., etc., etc. After the devastation of 9/11 - there was a moment of togetherness - and then all I heard was spend, spend; spend in order to help the economy. Where did that money go? We had Enron, etc. and many persons losing their savings, etc. Now the talk is rebuilding our country, but it seems as if some want to do it on the backs of the middle class and the poor. There are small business contractors that need jobs; there are small businesses that need loans - but the banks are holding back. What are the Republicans offering in order for our country to continue moving forward after the Bush Administration? If there is a plan, now is the time to get the message out. The cliches and the gaffs are not encouraging.

we are all bankrupt because of socialist ideals....or haven't you noticed?

You are not a moderate, left leaning American, you are in fact a socialist.

Our government as conceived, was not evil. It was the the culmination of the greatest thinkers in human history. Our government, your government and mine was instituted on the idea that every individual is born with rights, natural rights that precede government, they exist in the absence of government. It is the role of government to protect these rights and to do nothing more. To the extent that government involves itself in our lives it denies and limits these rights.

Government today is force, force against its own people, force against the individual, it is no longer a protector of individual rights, it seizes rights and limits them on the mistaken idea that it is best for the "general welfare". This socialist idea is not new, it is reminiscent of France following the 1st Revolution. You and people like you are the problem with the whole idea of freedom Albion, you simply are in denial, or dishonest.

I don't need for you to worry about my bankruptcy due to medical costs, I like millions more like me can take care of myself. You simply have to mind your own business. If you want to help people do so as an individual, don't use the force of government to command others to do it.

You can harp on about socialism and freedom and big scary government, but none of those things have any real bearing on the facts surrounding the reforms of health care. No freedoms have been usurped, the government has not "taken over" anything and you know sometimes some of us disagree with some decisions made by judges and politicians. The sky is not falling!

If you're going to cite the constitution at least try reading the whole thing, and put a little effort into understanding it. As you point out, the preamble is not law, and providing for the general welfare has nothing to do with providing welfare for millions of mooches.

Nobody is "entitled" to anything that someone else has to be forced to provide.

I've read the Constitution numerous times. Of late I find myself quoting it to conservatives who seem to think God wrote it on tablets and handed it to Saint Ronnie.

If elected officials, particularly those with R after name, would quit pandering, demonstrate some integrity and dispense with the selective use of the Bible and the Constitution, we might be able to have a meaningful discussion about (insert topic here).

[quote=maximus]If you're going to cite the constitution at least try reading the whole thing, and put a little effort into understanding it. As you point out, the preamble is not law, and providing for the general welfare has nothing to do with providing welfare for millions of mooches.

Nobody is "entitled" to anything that someone else has to be forced to provide.[/quote]

Yes, we actually are entitled to what others are forced to provide.

If Aliens land in Montana, the good people of said state will not be on their own in defending themselves. The rest of the nation will be force to provide military support to help the people of Montana. The people of Montana are entitled to this protection because the constitution unites them with the other 49 states, and they pay taxes for it.

How about a more realistic example: Why do they have post offices in the middle of nowhere po-dunk towns in hicksville? Other Americans are paying for it.

What other people are NOT entitled to (think of Israel here) is my tax dollars given to them (three billion a year) for nothing in return.

We are also entitled to military protection, but I supposed Iraqis and half the rest of the world get that same U.S. military protection, paid for by my tax dollars.

I could answer: Sickness and disease attacks the bodies and often kills US citizens. It threatens all our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Why shouldnâ€™t the government help protect us from that kind of enemy attack?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote for the Democrat.

...happy. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee my happiness? You seem to think it guarantee's my health so..... I can actually find the WORD Happiness in the Constitution still looking for the Health word though care to help?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

Now I know where you are going with this.. I saw the Media Matters talking point on this.. Healthcare is in the National Interest and sickness is the enemy...thus Government can "declare" war on that "enemy".

That argument is spurious and specious at best... idiotic at worst.

Using that argument Government can declare war on bad TV shows if "they" decide it is in the National Interest and it makes just as much sense.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

Albion has showed us yet again that the Constitution is a living and breathing thing that can be adjusted at the whims of Men in power.

Constitution 101 albion...listen up.. The General Welfare clause in the Preamble and Article 1 Section 8 are CLEARLY defined in the 18 Enumerated Powers of Congress. Additionally the Bill of Rights spells out what "Rights" we are "entitled" to. Healthcare, College Education and Housing is NOT one of them.

Government cannot give us "Rights" and we should not allow them to because what Government gives it can also take away. There is a big difference between "Welfare" as defined by the Federal Government and as defined what the Founders meant as "Welfare" by the States. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

The Preamble has no powers it is simply an INTRODUCTION to the Constitution. But Liberalist like albion will use the Preamble to promote their agenda. If we view the Constitution as an "Incorporated" document that promotes free Healthcare then I will take my Government issued Colt Model 1911 today please...Thank you so much.

You see if the Constitution is incorporated then therefore there can be no laws regulating the 2nd Amendment and in fact Government should provide for the arming of it's Citizens, but if you agree Government has the right of Government to regulate guns then you lose the argument for incorporation and just like that Healthcare has no argument as well.

You see albion that's Constitution 101 and you even got it for free.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

Tell me do you believe in the Incorporation doctrine? The point is valid. If you do then the Federal Government HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE GUNS. I can show you in the Constitution where I have the RIGHT to possess them can you show me where in the Constitution where I can find Healthcare?

Now if you don't believe in an Incorporated Constitution then there can be no Obamacare. That's a fact and it is unassailable.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

American courts, including tests given to the Supreme Court, have held that the Bill of Rights applies to the states and is enforceable. That's a fact, therefore the incorporation doctrine is real and exists in this world.

I don't believe in unicorns, but this isn't really be about "beliefs". You have an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that you believe. Terrific! Spurious, but really great!

There's plenty that not embodied in the Constitution. Car insurance, the electoral college, executive orders and privelege, marriage, paper money, political parties, the right to vote and immigration to name a few.

That said, these things have been codified or regulated in one way or another. The same is true of the ACA and will be true of other social and political changes, unforseen 200 years ago.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with yourself on this. You seem to be advocating for believing AND not believing in the same arguement. I'm confused

Constitutionality is in the eye of the beholder as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. You are technically correct, but it can change in the eyes of a one justice swing. Are you going to beat your chest and declare the consitutionality of Plessy v Ferguson? Once consitutional, always so, right Jeff? Hmmmm

He is correct.. The Justice's ruling does not make it Constitutional it means they have interpreted it to be so.

There are many instances where the Courts have ruled in direct conflict with the Constitution.

Wickard v Filburn is one such instance

Plessy v Ferguson is another..

District of Columbia v. Heller another such example.

What about the Dred Scott case or the Lone Wolf v Hitchcock? The worst of all in my opinion was United States v Callender?

You see History is full of mistakes by the Courts

There have been many such instances where later Courts overturned previous rulings Jeff. Recently the Antoine Jones case reexamined 40 years of jurisprudence Jeff so one ruling does not make it Constitutional. I suppose you said Bush v Gore was Constitutional right?

Just because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a particular law Jeff does not in fact make it Constitutional.

That's a basic fact Jeff.. much like the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

you are correct, the AHA was found constitutional as a tax. A fact that will become widely known and felt following the election. I suppose the gutless politicians that passed this, knew that they would be thrown out if was felt before the election.

all unconstitutional but was ruled Constitutional by the courts. Mistakes, misjudgments and just downright stupidity happens Jeff.

Let me ask you Jeff.. If the Court rules on a Law passed by Congress as Constitutional are you saying it can NEVER be overturned? If you say yes it can be overturned then was it therefore Constitutional in the first place?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

Ideologically I totally agree with the constitution being chiseled in stone. Now let's get on with what's really going to happen. The nanny state genie is out of the bottle. Good luck getting him back in. The government in one way or another will control(not just regulate) health care.(along with just about everything else).